The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-11-16
COMMISSIONERS SPARKS.

COMMISSIONER SPARKS.
He Charges Secretary Lamar with Misrepre-
sentation and Resigns His Office.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15-Land Commissioner
Sparks this afternoon personally delivered to
the President the following letter defending his
course in the Chicago. ST. Paul, Minneapolis &
Omaha railway land-grant case, and formally
resigning his office:
'DEPARTMENT OF THE INTER RIoR, }
GENERAL LAND OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, D. c., Nov. 15.
ITO the President:
The honorable Secretary of the Interior ad-
vises me. by letter dated the 11th instant, in
effect that he should on that date present to
you the alternative of selecting new Secretary
of the Interior a new Commissioner of the
Genaral Land Office, in view of which I have
felt called upon to address you this letter.
"Under the authority vested in the Commis-
sioner by the laws and in accordance with reg
.ulations and practice pursuant to law, by which
action is h;st taken in the General Land Office
in all matters relating to public lands, / had,
previous to September. 1887 made adjustments
of certain railroad land grants, two of which,
known as the Omaha cases, had been specially
directed by the Secretary report. On Oct
z, 1887, two decisions of the Secretary
rendered in the Omaha cases, non-concurring in
my adjustments. ano overruling the authority
on which they were based. He directed me, at
the same time, to cause the grant to be adjusted
in conformity with said decisions. now infer
were not approved by the official law adviser for
the Department of the Interior. The point at
issue related to the claim of railroad companies
to indemnity for lants that. under railroad
granting acts, were reserved from the operatio
OF those acts by express terms of the statutes.
Previous to 1875, lands that had been
served by the government for Indian and other
purposes. and which were excluded from the
grants and from the operation of the granting
acts, had been patented or certified to the COM
panies. both as granted lands and as indemnity,
promiscuously with other lands. This seems to
have been done in pursuance of practice of
giving railroad companies whatever they asked
for. apparently without much consideration of
the restrictions and limitations of the grants. In
that year the title to a large quantity of such
lands in the State of Kansas, which had been
erroneously conveyed to the Leavenworth, Law
renee & Galveston Railroad Company. was de-
creed invalid by the United States Supreme
Court. Since that date, for the past
twelve years. lands that reserved
at date of grant. or az date of the definite loca-
ton of the roads, as the case may be. have been
regarded and treated in the decisions and prac-
tice of this Office and department. excluded.
not only from all the grants, but from the in
demnity basis under all grants wherein such re-
served lands are, by the terms of the IL w. sx-
cluded from the operation of the acts. The Sec
tary held in the Omaha cases that the company
entitled to indemnity for such lands. This
decision, if adhered to, will have the effecr
take from the people many million acres of land
within railroad indemnity limits, which, by your
advice and with your approval, as expressed in
the Gulltord- Miller case, have been proclaimed
to the country as restored to the public domain.
1.-THE question of the correctness of these decis-
ions became. therefore, matter OF momentous
concern. If they correctly declared the law
these lands belong to the railroad companies. IL
they did not correctly declare the law the lands
belong to the people. The Omaha decisions
purport to be founded upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of the Winona & St
Peter Railroad Company VS.. Barney iil3 u. s,
6i2i the assertion being made that the plain
language of the court in that case seems TO bs
of the question presented also
upon a certain rule of statutory interpretation
relied UPON as being axiom of construction.
references to an unreported decision of
the United States Circuit Court for
Wisconsin. which was said in the
Omaba cases to be aIjudicial construction which
seems to leave no further room for discussion.
1t appeared to me that the decision Of the Su-
preme Court in the Barney case was absolutely
silent upon the question in the Omaha cases.
and that not even the obiter or the court sus-
taiued these decisions. 1t also appeared
that the question at Issue was not in the case
decided by the Circuit Court for Wisconsin. and
it seemed that the rule of statutory iuterpreta-
tions adopted in the Omaha cases was the
opposite of the rule of construction adopted by
the courts and laid down by law writer's ! was
therefore profoundly convinced that the Secre-
tarv had been committed to errors which. If
brought fully to his personal attention, might
be corrected.
SIT Is the practice OF the department to per-
NIT representatives of railroads and other private
interests TO apply for reviews and reconsdera-
tions of decisions, when questions are de,
clded against such interests believed
that, the officer of the govern
meDt having immediate guardianship of
the public lands and immediate charge of the
issuance of patents under all grants OF land by
Congress-, had at least an equal right with rep
of private interests to ask the Sec
retary of the Interior to re-examiae depart
mental decision. And | believed it especially
these cases. because 1 had not. bnt would have
done so, in the original instance il / mad an
ticipated change of ruling and decision
I've i waited upon the Secretary and person.
ally expressed to him my desire to have q
review of the decisions in these cases. He sug-
yested to me to let the matter rest for the pres
ent, in which suggestion /, of course, cheerfully
ac1uiesced. The formal application for review.
:ouehed in most respectful terms. was COM
pleted about Oct. 26. but was not put upon tho
Nov. 10 received a note from the Secretary de-
,irng present to him what had to say
upon this subject. My letter was accordingly
signed and delivered to him on the 11th inst.
with necessary change of date and other
-eetions that had been made. A copy of this
etter ia herewith inclosed for your inspection.
md for your judgment both upon substance of
matter and upon official courtesy Of form and
expression.
Several i'm portant questions were decided in
he Omaha cases other than the one referred TO
herein. which Justly call for consideration upon
he point of agreement with or contravention of
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United
states. but connned my application Tor review
o the question of indemnity for lands excluded
rom the operation of the granting acts, that
being of oyershadowing importance. In present
ng this application / informed the Secretary
hat it would not be made p1blic unless by him
elf Public attention having now been called
% tho ID after. / shall feel liberty to furnish
he press with copy of this letter after it has
,een communicated TO You and copy trans
nitted to him. 1t is but just to say that the
published communication addressed 10 me
md laid before you Is no answer to
ny letter applying for review. The Issue
aised by me strictly one of law. The pre-
entation of the issue was strictly in the line OF
sgal argument In the letter addressed TO me
hat issue is not met, and the effect has been TO
reate the erroneous impression that the issue /
vas one of authority alone, and that had re- |
used to execute the Secretarys official orders. |
This diversion of the issue from one of legal |
to of authority and insub- |
rdination is the substitution of force for argu-
nent, a diversion of the public mind from the |
csrits of the case, and il not resisted by me In
his presentation TO you. would be the suppress |
ion bv that power of a proper and a cousiderate |